Conjecture for you

Fred Meyer is really pushing the Snuggie.






It cracks me up. Whose idea was this ridiculous invention? My theory is that the son-in-law of some bigwhig FM exec. thought up the snuggie.

Also, in an unrelated aside:

Did Cody T. get a girlfriend? Or is he just not calling me back because he hates me?

Is this for real?

Is this our cure all to the "swine flu epidemic?"

FEAR=MONEY.

I can't help but think of the old Cold War Duck and Cover video, and the false hopes it was giving children, and I bet those children grew up and bought this Flu Prevention Kit.

Cookie Burger

I always feel that it's ok to play with food as long as it is free.

This is the real deal.

The following are actual comments overhead in a high school childcare class made by students discussing the new movie, 2012.

"What would it be like if the world ended? That would be so scary."

Q: "What would you do if the world was ending?"
A: (Without a pause.) "I'd kill someone."

"How do you spell heaven?" (This question was asked because the student was using her phone to search on the line and find out where heaven is.)

Sometimes my job can be so entertaining.

Story, Character, and Prose

I am not a professional English or Literature teacher. I am licensed as an elementary school teacher for kindergarten through grade 8. Currently I am not even doing that; I substitute. This means that everyday finds me in a different teaching situation. Yesterday I "taught" AP English.

I use the quotations because one would be hard pressed to demonstrate how what I did yesterday constituted teaching. I administered a vocab quiz and explained the day's assignments. Then I sat at the teacher's desk while the students got to work. Since it was an AP class, no one really even needed any one on one help. This meant that I got to spend large parts of the day just observing and thinking about what I was observing. (Of course, anyone worth their salt as a teacher should be doing as much thinking about teaching as they can.)

I spent a lot of time thinking about the assignment. The students were to use two stories, "A Worn Path" and "Where Does Voice Come From?" Both of these are by Eudora Welty, I believe. I could be wrong about that. They were to analyze how the point of view in these stories affected theme and characterization.

This assignment spurred a lot of thought of my own about how literature is taught, how it was taught to me, and how I believe it should be taught. As I said before, I am not an English or Literature teacher. I did not major in either of these two things in college. I am, however, a reader. I read voraciously. I love books more than almost anything in the world. (Not more than you, Abby.) One of the reasons I did not major in Literature was because of how I feel about what teachers of Literature do to literature. To put it bluntly, I believe that these people kill stories, and they kill stories for incredibly trite reasons.

For instance, let's say that your teacher wants you to know a thing or two about symbolism. They might choose to have you read Lord of the Flies. Then they might have you spend hours and hours of class time dissecting practically every line in order to find the symbols buried within. (I say might, but really this is almost a given.) By the time you are done, you know how to find a symbol like nobody's business (One of their favorites is the Christ figure.) but you are almost certain to dislike the book. Which is a tragedy, because Lord of the Flies is an amazing book. (This is why I recommend that students always read a book independently before they read it in a class. They will be allowed to simply enjoy the book for their own reasons; later, when the teacher tries to destroy it for them he will be unable to because the student will have already developed a love for it.)

The Scarlet Letter is the perfect example of a book that was ruined for most of my high school cohorts. I was fortunate enough not to have to read it for a class and I love it.

All of this brings me to the title of my note, "Story, Character, and Prose". These are the three elements of writing that I believe to be most important. An understanding of them can enhance enjoyment of a book or short story. Moreover, one can understand these elements without dissecting the book to the point that generates hatred of it. If one can write a compelling story filled with compelling characters, one will have done something quite wonderful. Many people are capable of this, though, which is why the third element is, I believe, more important. Case in point: The Twilight Series has a somewhat compelling story and characters, but the prose in it is dreck, which makes it difficult to enjoy. Prose can be bad, it can be competent, and it can be beautiful. Of course, there are levels in between.

Many classics are written with only competent prose. War and Peace is an example of this. It is, therefore, absolutely possible to write an amazing and timeless book without any exceptional talent for prose. A River Runs Through It is a book that is written with beautiful prose. This elevates the book to a level that is seldom attained by a writer.

The thing is, though, that too much time spent analyzing any of these things is akin to seeing a beautiful sunset and talking too much about how the light refracts, or the particles in the air, or anything of this nature. Discussions of this type have their place, mostly in science classes and labs, but to bring them up during the sunset is almost criminal. Just sit there and enjoy it, man. With books, the same is true. English teachers should save their discussions of things like symbolism, metaphor, hyperbole, and point of view for the times when they are hanging out with people whom they know get into this stuff. They certainly shouldn't talk about it in their English classes, if for no other reason than that it does not do what is intended. Instead of increasing the students' appreciation for the work, they lessen it.

Keep it simple, folks. Talk about the book in a casual manner that focuses on the story, the characters, and the beauty or lack thereof of the prose.

We've Got to Stop This!

More and more in the past couple of years I have come to the belief that the college path is not for everyone. In point of fact, it is not for most people. Yet our politicians, with Barack Obama at the helm, are encouraging more and more of America's school children to attend, to the point now where it is being suggested that EVERYONE go to college. This is a notion that is so ludicrous it is almost unbelievable that it is being propagated.

Regardless of the fact that there are myriad career paths that do not require a college education (ie plumber, auto mechanic, electrician, professional driver, hermit), the fact is that even with those career paths that do require a college education, the vast majority of them don't, not really. For instance, teaching. Since the dawn of time we have had people who were willing and able to teach. They passed on specific knowledge as well as general wisdom. Most of them did this for free. Most of them were very good at it, because if they weren't, their students would just move along to the next person, who was. Today we have a highly schooled professional teaching force, yet most of them possess little to no wisdom and very little actual knowledge. They use prepackaged lesson plans and textbooks that weigh forty or fifty pounds to collect their fat government paychecks and pensions. Basically, I'm saying that the current status quo, that of the teaching profession requiring a college education, is inferior to previous systems in which teachers were driven by a need to pass on knowledge that they had acquired through non-college means.

Another example is the business world. In the past, people would apprentice themselves to established and successful merchants, and once they had proven their abilities, they would be allowed to go out into the world to start businesses of their own. The same model still works today, but far too many people instead feel that they must plop 40-100K down on a business school education, only to find themselves entering the business world in the same positions that they would be without it.

With the cost of the college education ever rising, it makes me livid that America's youth are being told that this is the only and best path to a secure future for them and their families. The worst part of the whole scam is that for the majority of majors, nothing is learned that couldn't be self taught for free using the public library and by meeting with groups of like interested people in local coffee shops. We should not be encouraging such a ridiculous waste of money, especially not in these bleak financial times.

Someday I would like to see true leadership, leadership that challenges the dominant ideology instead of reinforcing it. It is so safe to encourage everyone to go to college; it would take real guts to suggest alternate career paths as a viable alternative. I'm talking about apprenticeships, trade schools, or simply small business loans to intelligent, yet young entrepreneurs. At the very least there should be a concerted effort made to reduce the cost of college significantly, thus allowing people to attend if they wish without breaking their backs with debt.

Perhaps, one day, this too will come to pass.

Who Holds the Test Writers Accountable?

It occurred to me the other day that while almost everyone in the political world and parenting world seems to be of the opinion that we should hold teachers accountable for the work that they do in the classroom, and quite a few people believe that this should be done through a series of standardized tests, no one seems to even be asking how we can hold the test writers accountable. When was the last time that they were asked to prove the validity of their tests? While we can't trust educated and talented people who have dedicated their lives to the art of teaching, we are supposed to trust blindly the corporate fat cats and their cronies who design and implement standardized tests.

This flies in the face of all logic. On the one hand, we have the classroom teacher. This is a person that we most likely know personally, (Here I'm assuming that the person wanting accountability is a parent.) We have talked with this person, we have entrusted our darling children to this person for 6 hours of every day, and we have monitored how our child has grown and matured in the time that she has been in this teacher's classroom. On the other hand, we have a nameless corporate entity. They have shown up for one week in April or May, made our child sit down in front of a test booklet or computer testing module, and subjected them to a series of disconnected questions. We do not know the names of the people who have written these questions and we will almost certainly never meet them. Yet if the teacher says one thing about our child and the test writers say another, it is the test writers whom we trust.

Even assuming that the test asks questions that can actually measure the educational achievements of our child, how can one week, or sometimes even only one day of our child's life be considered an adequate sample of their educational level. Oh, sure, when the kid fails he is given two more chances, but even then we can't really be sure, because there are far too many uncontrollable variables in these non-sterile testing environments. Further, no one with any real training in test taking psychology is doing any observing of our child while he is given this test that decides whether he is at the proper educational level.

I'm not saying that the tests in and of themselves are bad. I'm saying that we don't know that because nobody is even trying to check them out. Still, even assuming that they turned out to be good, they could only ever realistically be considered a small piece of the total amount of information we have on our child.

In Oregon, teachers are asked to have a Master's degree in education within seven years of the date that they begin teaching. This degree is very expensive and often very meaningful in the lives of those who earn them. The state does this because it says that it believes that a teacher must be properly trained before he can successfully pass on wisdom and knowledge to the next generation. Does it then seem odd to anyone else that the state has almost no confidence in this highly trained teacher's ability to do his job? There isn't even any kind of system in place to record and analyze the teacher's opinion about their students. They write report cards that get filed away somewhere, but no one other than the child's parents and maybe the principal will ever look at these. But schools spend countless man hours of both teacher and administrator time going over the scores from standardized testing.

I think that blows.

Some Good TV Beginnings

I think it is probably common knowledge that a lot of shows improve off of their early episodes. It can sometimes take quite a while for a show to find its groove, and early episodes can sometimes reflect that the writers didn't really have much of a plan at first. Also, introducing all the characters can be a difficult task. I thought I would take a moment or two to list some of the shows that I think did the best job of introducing their shows to the audience.

Freaks and Geeks: Within the first three minutes of this show, before the opening credits have even rolled, the writers have done many things. They have introduced all the major characters and some of the minor ones, and have done so in such a way that you really have a good feeling for them. They have demonstrated their brand of humor. Further, they have dispelled the possibility that this show might be just like all the other stupid teen dramas out there. The pilot episode goes on to accurately reflect many aspects of high school life, from the school bully to the teacher who thinks he's cool, but isn't. By the end of the episode you have seen something that hasn't been done on television since The Wonder Years. You've seen realistic characters, realistic settings, realistic periods, and realistic problems, and you have been entertained while doing it.

Angel: This is a show that I think definitely got worse as it went along. In the early episodes, though, it was brilliant. Rather than just being a copy of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the show it spun off from, it was charting a new path. Eventually, of course, it did just become a copy of its parent show, but in these early episodes we were introduced to a hero who was incredibly lonely, living in a city filled with millions of equally lonely non-heroes. I've never lived in LA, but I can only imagine that a city filled with that many transplants must have its share of loneliness, and that is what initially drew me to this series. Enough so that even when I got bored with it I kept watching.

John from Cincinnati: This show is hated by almost everyone, both critics and regular people, but it is brilliant. Since it only ran for one season it is really all early episodes, but right from the get go I was enthralled by the surfer lifestyle and the philosophy that could be drawn from that. And I have never more quickly fallen for a character than I did for John. Don't bother watching the show, you'll probably hate it, but know that I love it.

Twin Peaks: The bizarre nature of this show is what most people remember, but it is the characters that kept me coming back. Especially Agent Dale Cooper of the FBI. After the mystery is solved a lot of people quit watching, and understandably so, as the series temporarily started to shift into silly melodrama, but these early episodes really pop, and its too bad that people didn't stick around to see what happened, because by the end of season 2 it was really starting to have a second life. It would have been nice to see what happened next.

This list only scrapes the surface of excellent television programs, but if I continue it any further I will be stretching the premise, since what I am talking about here is beginnings.

Movies I Like

I feel like a get a lot of guff from people for not liking things that I don't see any reason to like. I thought I would address some of the things that I do like here, because they are really quite plentiful. For the sake of removing nostalgia from the equation, I am only going to talk about movies that I have seen recently.

Note: Some of the comments I make might reveal spoilers, so if you are interested in watching any of the following films: Let the Right One In, The Andromeda Strain, then don't read about them. Or do, because I really don't give away very much.

Up: I am not a huge fan of Pixar movies. They are hit and miss with me. I don't go into the theater thinking that I have a sure fire hour and a half of entertainment on my hands. One of the major flaws with cartoons today is that they try to draw in adults with a lot of topical humor, while at the same time pandering to kids with a lot of silly humor. What you're left with, then, is a movie that is both juvenile and smarmy, and that will definitely not stand the test of time. A prime example of this is the movie Shrek. Up, on the other hand, is a delight. Abby and I saw this last weekend and we both thoroughly enjoyed it. The characters are all rounded, even the villain, and the humor is timeless. It definitely worked for me and I highly recommend it.

Let the Right One In: This is a vampire movie that does what all the recent vampire stories (ie Twilight, True Blood, et al) have not. It is genuinely creepy. Maybe that's just cause the vampire is a young girl, and everyone knows there is nothing creepier than creepy children. I think it's more than that, though. The movie ends up being just as much a story about the awkwardness and vulnerability of pre-adolescence as it is about vampires. And then, to top it all off, it's about the unease that older people feel when they think about the youth of today. It is a great little movie.

License to Wed: I know, most of you probably didn't even bother to see this one. In case you forgot, it's about Mandy Moore and Jon Krasinski having to take a marriage course from Robin Williams, who plays what I think was an Episcopalian priest. The basic plot of the movie is very stale, and the underlying themes are very boring, but ultimately, this movie is a vehicle for some jokes and humorous bits that work very, very well.

Tombs of the Blind Dead: The main thing in this film is the pacing. That, and the robed horses. Horror today is usually about going over the top. Saw and movies like it try to get us in the stomach just as much as they try to get us in the brain. While I didn't find Tombs of the Blind Dead scary, I could definitely see how if I had been much younger I would have. In this sense, it reminded me of the Changeling, another fine horror film. And the important thing about these kinds of horror films is that they try to scare us more by not showing, which ultimately goes to the heart of all fear; the unknown.

Casino Royale: Here is a re-imagining that shows how re-imaginings should be done. Rather than subtracting from the mythos of James Bond, Casino Royale adds to it. Instead of none stop action, the fare that we had come to expect from the franchise, this Bond movie spends huge amounts of time on a card game. The only major drawback is that they kept Dame Judi Dench. Man, I hate her.

Jurassic Park III: A rare item. A trequel that is as exciting as its predecessors. Possibly more so. The first Jurassic Park movie tried to awe us with its spectacle before terrorizing us with its velociraptors. The second one just seemed forced, especially after they brought T-Rex back from the island. This one jumps right into the action and sends us on a non-stop thrill ride of death defiance, adding several new dinosaurs to the mix while retaining the old. And we get to see Sam Neill performing a fake American accent again.

Duel: This is probably Stephen Spielberg's best movie. And it was made for TV. There is very little dialogue in this film, only one real character, and we never get to see the face of the madman who is driving the action, both figuratively and literally, but I have never watched a movie with so much tension. Proof that less is more, something more Hollywood executives and directors could learn from.

The Andromeda Strain: What I love about this movie is that they create all this dramatic tension, with a race to find the cure to an incredibly deadly virus, only to learn at the end that the viruses mutations have rendered it harmless. A classic tale that reflects the way our society handles crises all too well.

Why JJ Abrams should stop wasting his time with Star Trek and get back to Lost

A few blogs back I put together a list of the top whatever sci-fi shows of all time, and both Star Trek and Lost were on it.

Now, I was a late comer to Lost. I watched the premiere way back when, but it didn't grab me so I gave up on it about 30 minutes in. Then I started to hear about how great it was, but I didn't care. It wasn't until I fell for Abby that I began to seriously consider giving it a second chance. This year, I did that very thing, and was pleasantly amazed.

Lost is everything that good sci-fi and good television should be. It's exciting and action packed, for those people who need a lot of gunfighting and explosions in their entertainment. But more importantly, it's a mystery that actually knows where it's going. I know a common complaint about Lost is that the writers never answer any of their many questions, they just raise more. I'm not sure that I understand this, because having just watched the first five seasons in direct succession, it is pretty clear to me what the answers are to almost all of the mysteries raised in seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4. It's only a couple of questions raised in season 5 that are still up in the air. But what was cool about those questions is that they didn't have easy, predictable answers. They kept you wondering for a very long time. Lost is a show that requires patience. But don't let anyone tell you that the writers are making it up as they go along, because that is demonstrably not true. These guys have known since season 1, they just haven't let us in on the secret.

Star Trek was also on the list. Star Trek was a remarkable show that spawned a series of less remarkable spin-offs and a bunch of movies, some that were very good, others that were not. Most of the not so good ones were related to TNG spin-off.

But Star Trek was never about fast-paced action with little validation. It was about exploration and discovery. In fact, every single movie with the original cast had this as one of the major themes. So did both the original series and The Next Generation.

In the new movie, Abrams takes an incredibly flimsy premise (That an interstellar mining crew would be so overcome with vengance that they would wait 25 years for it, then use their mining ship to try to destroy the entire Federation of Planets. Why didn't they just jaunt off to Romulus and try to stop the destruction of their homeworld before it happened?) as an excuse to provide a lot of unrealistic action sequences. There was none of the planning that goes into Lost and none of the sense of wonder that goes into Star Trek. There was just a bunch of stuff blowing up. If that's what you want in a movie, fine. I like that stuff a little, too. Just don't hype it up as being so great. Tell me it's a kind of silly movie with a bunch of cool looking effects. That's all I'm saying.

What I Didn't Like About Star Trek

I won't go so far as to say I hated the new movie. It was a mildly entertaining action film. I just don't understand all the hype. In an attempt to further my reputation as the guy who never likes anything popular, here are the reasons why I felt that the newest addition to the Star Trek universe was not a terribly good movie.

1. It was kind of boring.

I remember looking at my timepiece at several points. I knew the movie had a two hour running time, so I was able to keep myself going by saying, "Oh good, only 30 minutes to go." I can't really put my finger on exactly why it was boring without going into my other reasons I didn't like it.

2. It was unrealistic.

Listen, I know it's science fiction. Even so, there should be some rules about the way the world works. A ten year old boy, genius or no, should not be able to jump out of a car going 90 miles an hour and escape unscathed. Nor should a cocky cadet with a penchant for breaking the rules be promoted to Captain, and given command of a starship, on the basis of one mission. In Star Trek IV, Admiral Kirk returns from the 1980s having saved all of Earth from the whale probe only to find himself demoted to Captain for the stealing of the Enterprise that he perpetrated in Star Trek III. Starfleet recognized Kirk's contribution, but could not condone his insubordination. Now all of the sudden they're promoting kids to the command of an interstellar vessel with planet destroying weaponry just because he did all right in a pinch?

3. It violated most of the Star Trek canon.

I know people are going to like this reason least of all, but I was just really bothered by the alternate reality plot line. I only hope they use time travel in the sequel to stop Nero before he starts. Because of what they have done here, pretty much everything else that ever happens in Star Trek will not have happened. Furthermore, the movie violated the very spirit of the show, which was of boldy going where no one had gone before. The original series and most of the subsequent spinoffs were about exploration and discovery first and fighting and battle sequences second. Even most of the movies followed this vein, with a few exceptions. This movie may have been good if it had been made outside of the Star Trek universe, but as a Star Trek movie it falls short.

4. It was silly.

The great threat of the movie is an overly vengeful mining crew??? A mining crew that pilots a ship fully armed with torpedoes??? I'm sorry, but even the Romulans wouldn't waste money arming a mining ship. And then there was the whole using the mind meld as a flashback thing. That was just stupid. In fact, let me go on the record here as saying that having Nimoy in the movie at all was stupid. Further, the coincidence of having every long term character from the original movies in the cast was silly as well. It was a blatant ploy to keep us emotionally invested in characters that had been poorly developed. I mean, who needs to bother with character development when you can just employ remarkable coincidence?

Anyway, I didn't hate the movie. I just felt that someone needed to address some serious shortcomings with it, since the majority of people that I have talked to seem to be completely gaga over it. I would rate it as being of similar quality to the Next Generation films, but not as good even as Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

We all have got to do our part for the humors and such

I think we can all agree that there is a good deal of funny stuff on the internets.

A lot of it happens on the facebooks, I understand. Some of it happens on the myspaces. Precious little happens here.

With all of the humorous goings on, I sometimes worry that I don't contribute enough.

It's one thing to be a consumer of humorous internet postings and such, but if we're going to get the world humour economy out of its recession we need everyone to try and do their part. This won't happen overnight. Videos like the following will be a good start though.


Slow Bicycle Race - Copenhagenize vs Amsterdamize - Redux from Amsterdamize on Vimeo.

Apparently this blog is going to just be a bunch of pictures of things we saw on either the internet or in real life. This might not work for me, since I am BLIND.

Take that Portland and your crazy bikes!

Portland doesn't care about it's retarded little sister Roseburg, but at least she's trying.






Straight up worst bike mod I've ever seen. Check out that duct tape job, purely sweet.



Side cabs are cool on motorcycles, but what the hell is this? I think these photos have a future as a visual aide in promoting bike mod abortion.

What an aisle

I'm telling you this is really the only aisle that I would ever need in my life. The question is, how did this come to happen?
I blame it purely on convenience for the fatties.

Hilarity on SE Stark St.

Every time I pass this sign it cracks me up.



This is the street sign equivalent of the Rotisserie chicken kiosk at Fred Meyer. They're both kind of revolting but also fairly hilarious.

This sign says to the world:

"Here is a slab of dead cow presented to you enlarged in scale so that you can see the vanes and fat and everything as you pass by."

Tuscan Whole Milk

There used to be this good deal on Amazon, where you could buy a gallon of milk.
Order Summary
Items: $3.99
Shipping & Handling: $26.25

Total Before Tax: $30.24
Estimated Tax:* $0.00

Order Total: $30.24
I suggest checking out the top rated customer reviews

Check the link!

The Room

Had the chance to check out half of The Room last night, this movie is a solid gold mine.
I wish I could truly share it with you, but instead I'll give you this one clip.
Tommy Wiseau is now my favorite actor.

Oh, man.

I can't believe they brought back the whole D2 cast for this epic threequel.


I would have thought a bunch of great actors like that would have demanded better pay and been laughed off the D3 set. Oh, man though, this movie was great. No icelanders, and Emilio Estevez didn't do any cartwheels but lots of drama. I mean, I can't believe they killed off Hans.

69 Baby!

I watched this most awesome of Kurt Russell movies last night and I noticed something I never noticed before. They refer to the bridge that "Snake" Plessnik and the president escape on as the "69th Street Bridge."

They probably meant the 59th Street Bridge.







Every Paul Simon fan knows that old bridge.



The thing is that there is a 69th Street railroad bridge, but I certainly didn't see any railroad tiles on the bridge they crossed in the movie.


...just sayin'.

I just finished this book. Now I'll have to see the movie. I haven't seen or read the first one. I'll probably read the novelization first. --Cause I'm sort of an educated guy. Not to be snobby about it or anything. I wouldn't want this blog to be too snobby, but novelizations are pretty much the epicenter of good literature.

Years ago I compiled some News Review police reports, here are a few of them.

12:35 p.m. — Report of a cat that got caught in a crab trap near the 600 block of Salmon Harbor Drive in Winchester Bay
2:34 a.m. — Police were asked to check Shadow Ranch Lane in Roseburg for a suspicious-looking male wearing what looked like a “space suit.”
3:36 p.m. — Report of a man rolling in the grass and waving his arms around near Edenbower Boulevard and Interstate 5 in Roseburg.
3:58 p.m. — Report of a naked man lying on the ground and masturbating behind a booth in the park near the 400 block of Southeast Canyon Street in Canyonville. No one present wanted to press charges.
Roseburg Police
10:37 a.m. — Report of a man who stole pork chops and barbecue sauce from Safeway, 406 Rose Street..
2:20 p.m. — Report of a teenage male who went into a building on Fulton Street and asked if they had any money in the safe and if they had any candy.
1:40 pm — Report of a man in a vacant residence in North Roseburg. A Women went over and told him he was trespassing. He offered her a lollipop.
Sutherland Police
9:57 a.m. — A man was allegedly intoxicated and unable to locate his pants on East Central Avenue.
5:00 p.m. — A man who was walking in the area of the 300 block of North State Street was reportedly carrying a shotgun and swinging it around. The shotgun turned out to be an umbrella
3:44 p.m. — An intruder reportedly entered a space above a person’s ceiling, fell asleep and was snoring on the 200 block of Southwest Everett Avenue.
7:21 a.m. — Report of a puppy stuck in a recliner at a residence on Northwest Second Avenue. The chair was dismantled and puppy was OK.
Myrtle Creek Police
4:46 pm — Report of a bear cub in a yard tying to through garage sale items near the 1000 block of Northeast Hawthorne Avenue
Winston Police
Motorist traveling down Grape Street in Winston were repeated pelted with grapes as they drove past some neighborhood children.

Knot too bee a grammar snob

Not to be a grammar snob, but whoever does the reader board over at the tub and tan on 80th and Stark should check their dictionary.






...just sayin'.

Love is creepy sometimes, but creepy can be so damn sexxy.

and yes you likely saw her in thriller

and yes blind chicks are HELLA

HOTT!

Seems to me that is indeed MJ's girlfriend in Thriller.

Welcome to excellence

I am officially joining the shit out of this blog. Get ready to have your world so effectively rocked.

This is Cody/ Nibble on the drippy stick

no please stop...

Just making a first post to test it out.